Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3991, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act. In an otherwise noncontroversial bill, Republicans have, once again, displayed their true agenda by inserting a provision to circumvent the campaign finance reform bill that was just signed into law. It is the height of hypocrisy for the House Republicans to pass broad campaign finance reform in March and then create loopholes to the law in April. In 2000, Congress passed a law that requires campaign finance reporting disclosure of section 527, non-profit political organizations. While most 527 organizations report their activities to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and their income tax to the IRS, there was a subset of 527 organizations, both conservative and liberal, are active in political advertising and direct mail. Prior to enactment of the 2000 law, however, these organizations were not required to disclose who they received contributions from or how much. Congress corrected this specific campaign finance problem by requiring disclosure of those making large contributions to these types of 527 organizations. And just last month, Congress passed and the President signed broader campaign finance reform legislation. The bill before us today guts the success of these two campaign finance bills by creating a new loophole for section 527 organizations to raise and spend soft money contributions without having to disclose the activity to anyone. To protect the integrity of campaign finance reform, Congressman Doggett offered an amendment in the Ways & Means Committee to ensure that section 527 political organizations could not circumvent our new campaign finance laws. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have already made big plans to use these loopholes for raising money, so the amendment failed along party lines. A recent report by Public Citizen shows that the existing section 527 IRS disclosure system suffers from serious flaws and allows many of these groups to skirt the law. We should be correcting the shortcomings of the 2000 law and strengthening the disclosure system--not weakening it. Our Republican friends, however, want more loopholes so they can keep stuffing their pockets with soft money cash. It is time for this Congress to put an end to campaign finance reform hypocrisy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3991.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rona Popal on her distinguished dedication to helping and empowering women in Afghanistan. Rona Popal is a 20-year resident of Fremont, California who was born in Afghanistan. She recently returned to her country of birth because she feels she has a responsibility to help women overcome the obstacles of their daily lives in Afghanistan. Oppressed under the former Tallban government, and still not equipped to handle the realities of daily life, women in Afghanistan enjoy few civil rights. Driven by an intense desire to help the people of Afghanistan in any way she can, Rona Popal handed money to the poverty-stricken on the streets of Kabul and met with interim Chairman Hamid Karzai on her recent trip. Now she intends to form a partnership between a school for the deaf in Kabul and the California School for the Deaf in Fremont. She also plans to work on projects to help women in Afghanistan become self- sufficient. Rona Popal is the founder of the Afghan Coalition and the Afghan Women's Association International, two groups in the United States that work to improve the lives of Afghan citizens. I am honored to commend Rona Popal on her inspiring and selfless efforts to improve the lives of women in Afghanistan.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to plug a corporate tax loophole that allows companies to hide stock option expenses from their Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) earnings reports, but allows those same companies to take the deduction on their Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax filings. My bill would force companies to report the stock option expense on their financial earnings records if they want to continue to take the deduction on their income tax filing. I'm pleased to be joined by Reps. Barney Frank and Lynn Rivers in introducing this important bill. Senators Levin and McCain have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Under current law, companies can deduct stock option expenses from their income taxes as a cost of doing business, just like employee wages. However, companies are not required to report these business expenses on their SEC financial statement to stockholders. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the self-regulated accounting board with SEC reporting oversight, recommends that companies record stock options as an expense on their financial earnings statement, but does not require that stock options be treated as an earnings expense. In fact, stock options are the only form of compensation not treated as an earnings expense at any time. Nearly all companies relegate their stock option expenses to a footnote in their SEC report, yet these expenses are not reflected in their bottom line earnings. Among the S&P 500 companies, only Boeing and Winn-Dixie follow the advice of FASB and actually record the cost of options on both the tax and earnings ledger. Right now, companies can replace wage compensation with stock option compensation without having to show reduced earnings on their financial statements. This loophole misleads investors, financial analysts, and workers who have their pension funds tied up in companies that offer stock options. Since companies costs are not reported on the financial earnings statement, companies' earnings appear greater than actual earnings should reflect. Let's take the case of Enron as an example of how misleading this loophole can be. According to a study by Citizens for Tax Justice, from 1996-2000, Enron took a $600 million tax deduction for stock options. Over that same five-year period, Enron showed $1.8 billion in earnings. However, this earnings figure did not completely reflect Enron's true earnings. As we know, Enron used a number of accounting gimmicks to artificially inflate their earnings report, one of which was the decision to list all stock option compensation as a footnote in its earnings report and then exclude this compensation from its total expenses. Had Enron accurately recorded its stock option compensation it would have had to report a decrease in earnings by one-third! Furthermore, had Enron been required to report that one-third of its earnings were attributed to stock options, then employees and stockholders could have seen that company profits weren't based on real growth. According to an analyst with Bear Stearns, the earning reported by firms in the S&P 500 would have been 9 percent lower in 2000 if stock options were treated as an expense. As Enron leaders clearly realized, company executives can prosper by means other than simply building a great company. Executives can often increase their personal wealth by creating unrealistic expectations of their company from Wall Street, rather than the old fashioned way of consistently delivering impressive growth. Consider the following two hypothetical companies. One company has a stock price that has appreciated slowly. It started at $20 and gained $2 each year for five years, raising its price to $30 today. The second company's stock also started at $20 five years ago, then zoomed to $100 after a few years but has since fallen back to $20. By any reasonable measure, the leaders of the first company have done a better job at growing a solid company, worthy of its stock price. Their share price has grown 50 percent, and they have avoided making grandiose predictions that cause Wall Street analysts to set silly targets. The second company's stock has under-performed over the long run, and scores of workers and investors have been burned by false hopes. If the top executives of both hypothetical companies had received similar amounts of stock and both sold their shares on a regular schedule, the executives of the second company would have earned more. These executives would have made so much money selling the stock when it was trading near $100 that they would become instant multimillionaires, despite the stock's ensuing, rapid decline. Thus, the practice of failing to report stock options on earnings reports could actually encourage executives to take stock options as a form of compensation. That way, they can earn millions of dollars, claim it as a tax deduction, and then hide it from investors. My bill corrects this perverse incentive and seeks to discourage reckless executive behavior. My bill also gives companies an incentive to report their stock option expenses in order to continue to take the tax deduction. If stock options are a cost of doing business for tax purposes, then they should be a cost of doing business for earnings purposes. But don't just take my word for it. In a March 7th Senate Banking Committee hearing, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board testified: ``The truth of the matter is that if you do not expense the granting stock options or their realization in the income statement, as, indeed,, we are required in our tax forms, then you will get a pre-tax income which is higher than one can argue you really had . . . Is income being properly recorded? And I would submit to you the answer is no.'' Arthur Leavitt, former Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, favors reporting publicly held stock options on SEC earnings reports. He told NPR: ``. . . If we decide to account for public stock options in a way that I think is in the public interest, I do not believe for a moment it would be the end of capitalism, nor do I believe it will have a significant negative impact on America's corporations.'' Deloitte & Touche, one of the nation's premier accounting firms, as well as Arthur Anderson, Enron's disgraced accountant, both say options should be charged to a company's income statement. Many Wall Street analysts agree. Eighty-three percent of U.S. financial analysts who responded to a survey by the Association for Investment Management Research (AIMR) also support listing stock options in the financial income statement. The evidence is clear: this loophole should be closed. My bill to ``End the Double Standard for Stock Options'' is a much-needed fix to help prevent companies from misrepresenting their financial status to stockholders and employees. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important bill and to support its enactment this year.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, no. I talked about the fascist wing of the Republican Party.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Joint Economic Committee has been granted the debate on the budget message since the passage of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 authored by Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Gus Hawkins, and it is our duty to present the views on the current state of the U.S. economy and provide input into the budget debate before us. Members have just heard the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) give us a tremendous amount of economic data and explain very succinctly his opinion of what it will take to get the country growing again. I am proud to be here today to continue the tradition begun by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins. However, the budget before us is not one of which either of those gentlemen would be proud. Rather than leading us down an economic path of balanced growth and full employment, the budget before us today is nothing more than a political document seeking to hide the fact that the House Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has led us into deficit spending for years to come, and endangers the future of Medicare, Social Security, and our children's education because the trust funds for the two programs for the elderly are used to finance the misplaced priorities of the Republican Party and their fat cat contributors, and the Leave No Child Behind Act has not been left with enough money for a bus ticket to bring the children along. What this budget is is a document that outlines the Republicans' philosophy, and that is to reduce government and pay no attention to the poor or the disadvantaged among us. It is interesting that the louder they talk about free enterprise, the more we find that very few of my Republican colleagues have ever had a job in a company they did not inherit, except at the public trough. And the louder they scream about free enterprise, the more we will find they probably earned their money at the expense of taxpayers, and probably we will benefit very little from these $1.5 trillion tax cuts they passed out but it will go to their rich contributors, for whom they seem to spend all their time working in the House to protect, because they certainly are not doing anything to help the people who depend on Social Security or Medicare. Last year, for example, the House passed the Social Security Lockbox Act by a vote of 407 to 2. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) voted for the bill, and said on the House floor, ``This legislation prevents Congress from using the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to cut taxes or increase spending.'' My goodness. And the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) during last year's budget debate on the floor said, ``The bottom line is that the HI trust fund is part of the larger fund, and it can be only used for Medicare. And it can be used for Medicare reform, but the Democrats voted for a lockbox, as did we, by a vote of 407 to 2. Everybody voted for it, and the money will stay in the trust fund and it will only be used for Medicare and Medicare reform, so that is just that,'' said the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). Apparently the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) were wrong about the effects of that legislation, and apparently they no longer care about protecting Social Security and the Medicare trust funds. I hope the voters in their districts in Connecticut and Florida will ask them, because I am sure that they will both support this Republican budget today; I challenge them not to. And the budget today will decimate the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. So here we have the Republicans talking about the lockbox, and they are voting and they are going to vote tonight, Mr. Chairman, to destroy Medicare and Social Security. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) opposed amendments to the economic stimulus bill recently. We had an amendment to extend an increase of employment benefits for displaced workers. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) voted no and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) voted no. We had a bill or an amendment to extend COBRA coverage with a 75 percent subsidy. Both of these stalwart Republicans voted no on that. We had an amendment to make tax cuts contingent upon not breaking into the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) both voted no. So, as I say, Mr. Chairman, the budget here tonight is a farce; it is a sham; it is a joke. The Republicans are here to undermine critical Federal programs so they can give tax cuts to their rich fat cat friends. Who are the losers? Seniors, children, women, working families, poor people, immigrants, the homeless, the environment. The list goes on. Last year we added we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, and now, after a faltering economy and an enormous tax cut, the surplus is gone. This budget eats up 86 percent of the Social Security surplus over the next 5 years, the entire Medicare trust fund is obliterated for the next decade, and just last year, the Republicans were passing Social Security and Medicare lockboxes to protect these trust funds. Well, Mr. Chairman, the lockboxes are gone. They not only threw away the key, they gave a duplicate to every one of the rich fat cats who have been supporting their campaigns. There is no drug benefit, there is no education benefit. We are leaving a lot of children behind. Do Members know what they are going to do? They are going to say, let us have everybody get married. That will resolve the problem of poverty among the poor. What I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that poor people, having them get married just gives us a poor couple. Mr. Chairman, we have education gone, special education funds gone, TANF money increases gone. Housing? The Republicans think that the homeless, when the weather is nice, are campers, so they would offer them youth hostels, not money for housing. We have here an example of the arrogance of the people who care only for a few rich people in this country turning their backs on the people that the Democrats are trying to help and protect. Would I raise taxes? In a New York minute. Would I do away with the inheritance tax repeal that the Republicans made to give a few thousand people $40 billion while they will not give the rest of the people drug benefits? You bet. It is time we start seeing what the American people want. Do they want a few rich fat cats helped, or do they want to continue to see Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security as some of the safety nets for the seniors? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the fascist wing of the Republican Party.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, there are some of us who remember this world in the 1930s, when Hitler suspended the Bundestag to promulgate conservative ideology and not let people speak. It is a shame that the Republicans in the House, Mr. Chairman, have taken up that same ideology and are denying a chance for debate and open discussion of a budget. It does smack of fascism; and it is too bad, because the American people will recognize that and understand that in a free economy, and in a free country that created programs like Social Security and Medicare and special education and aid for dependent children and aid for people who are unable to care for themselves, for the disabled, that to deny them care is obscene. I think it will be quite clear that, for whatever reason, whether it is deficits or anything else, that the overwhelming desire of the Republican Party is to destroy programs in the Federal Government, except those few intended for the very wealthy. Most of the colleagues who are screaming about the war never wore a uniform other than the Boy Scout uniform. And I would like to suggest, as I said before, none of them have worked in free enterprise, which they tout so loudly. And yet, because that is where the campaign contributions come from, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, that is where their allegiance is. They are forsaking the seniors who need health care and who need an economic safety net. They are forsaking our children by denying them the chance to come along and get an education. I am sure the American public is going to recognize this, and I am sure they are going to recognize it when they see wasteful money spent on things like Star Wars, which will not work, and programs which do nothing except to pay for large defense contractors, who are related to former Republican Presidents, and I think they are going to see that this is an obscene, corrupt, and undemocratic attempt to harm those people who are most fragile in this country only to benefit the 1 or 2 percent of the very wealthiest. And I hope my colleagues will vote down this budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis). (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who understands that gagging people and preventing them the right to speech is not incumbent in our democracy, and remembers a time when not all people in this country were allowed to speak out. The Republicans obviously are reverting to those times because they are afraid to hear another plan.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who understands democracy and the right of debate and free speech. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who had a plan to offer and was denied in a rather fascist manner his right to offer amendments here and led by the example by our new Attorney General who feels trampling on the Constitution is the way that fascist governments should run and I guess the way we are going under the Republican leadership, but we will let the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) tell us what his plan was and what the Republicans refused to allow him. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who understands that our plan would only raise taxes on the 1 or 2 percent of the very richest people in this country who the Republicans gave the $1.4 billion tax cut to. It would help low income people for whom the Republicans do not really care.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am about to yield a few seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who realizes that the Democrats had a plan that they took to the Committee on Rules that was not made in order. They had several amendments, none of which were made in order. So we are operating under a gag rule. Our plan and amendments were not allowed. This is kind of the fascism of democracy that operates in a Republican-controlled Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Massachusetts also understands that it is a good thing that lawyers do not teach economics. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Delaine Eastin, on the dedication of the Delaine Eastin Elementary School in Union City, California. Delaine Eastin once stated, ``I'll never stop fighting for children and education, it's my life's work.'' As a strong defender of top- quality education in California, Delaine Eastin has proven immeasurably successful at this admirable goal. As State Superintendent, Delaine Eastin has fought for safer and healthier schools, modern facilities, cutting-edge technology, family- school partnerships, teacher training and professional development, tighter graduation requirements, and increased resources for schools. She is a dedicated advocate for reduced class sizes, improved reading and mathematics instruction, and the implementation of statewide standards, assessment, and increased accountability for what students should accomplish. She has tirelessly advocated for improved library facilities, strong arts programs, and librarians, counselors, and nurses in all California schools. Delaine Eastin is currently serving her second term as State Superintendent. Prior to this position, she served as an educator, a Union City city councilwoman, and a four-term State Assemblywoman for Southern Alameda County. She was chair of the Assembly Committee on Education, where she voiced early support for the charter school concept and for strengthened technical and vocational training. Delaine Eastin is the recipient of many distinguished awards and recognitions, notably the President's Crystal Apple Award from the American Library Association, the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of California, Santa Barbara, the Woman of Achievement Award from the Women's Fund, and the Leader Award from California Leadership. In addition to the Delaine Eastin Elementary School, a day care center also carries her name. I am honored to congratulate Delaine Eastin on all of her remarkable accomplishments. Her tireless dedication to improving education in California has assured every child in the state the opportunity for a bright and successful future.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. Protecting our children from abuse is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, the potentially harmful consequences of this bill outweigh its benefits. My primary concern with H.R. 2146 is its mandatory sentencing requirements. Mandatory sentencing laws tie the hands of judges. Such laws remove the flexibility judges need to carefully review every case and assess the individual circumstances of their cases. For example, this bill could force a judge to sentence someone to life in prison for a minor offense. Furthermore, in some abuse cases, particularly those involving family members, treatment and counseling may effectively address the offending behavior. This bill would eliminate the prospect for such treatment. When sentencing, judges need to have the discretion to determine when a plaintiff is a sexual predator that could threaten other children, versus someone whose problems could be addressed through treatment, counseling or other means. In addition to my concerns about mandatory sentencing, this bill has an unintended racial bias. This bill is limited to cases falling under federal jurisdiction, meaning it would apply primarily to Native Americans on reservations. It would have no effect on the type of cases used to justify the bill, such as the Polly Klaus case. That was a state case and so this bill would have no effect. There is no evidence to suggest that child abuse is particularly prevalent on Native American reservations, so this bill unfairly singles them out. We need strong laws to protect children from abuse. Such laws, however, must give our judges the proper authority to best protect the interests of our children and their families. In that regard, this bill falls short, so I must reluctantly vote against the bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I understand what is behind this. I am not a lawyer, I will never be a judge, but this is really the Republicans' attempt to prevent themselves from being sued as a party under a class action under RICO by the 42 million beneficiaries of Medicare whose plan they are plotting to destroy. As we sit here today, the Committee on the Budget is giving the Republican budget in the office building, and they are going to tell you how they are going to give 1 year, $8 billion, to Medicare. They have depleted the entire Medicare trust fund, and this 1 year, $8 billion, is contingent on privatizing Medicare, taking the President's reform, which is a voucher system, and destroying Medicare, as the Republicans are on record as wanting to do time and time again, starting with Newt Gingrich. So they have given us $8 billion, or $40 billion over 5 years, if we privatize the system. That is to cover a drug benefit which ought to cost $70 billion a year by any standards. That does not allow us to correct the inequity in physicians' payments which costs $12 billion a year. This does not take care of hospital inflation, children's hospitals, teaching hospitals, cancer centers, preventive screening. This is an obscene hoax on the American people. It is just one more indication of protecting the corporate interests and the corporate insurance companies, for instance, who provide Medicare benefits from any class action. They will not let us have the Patients' Bill of Rights. The only way we have now to enforce that is class actions in a few cases. If we could have a Patients' Bill of Rights with the right to sue, that might not be necessary. But one more case, protect the rich, trample on the poor, do away with Medicare and Social Security, this is the Republicans' plan; and this is one more nail in the coffin of the Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the achievements of a remarkable family in my district. Roman Reed was a star college football player until he was paralyzed by a game injury that broke his neck. Such an injury would devastate most families, but not the Reeds. Roman's father, Don, began tirelessly searching for cures for his son's injuries. Don learned that, while research is moving closer and closer to a cure, insufficient funding is slowing our chances for success. Roman's parents, Don and Gloria Reed, have become tireless advocates for spinal cord research. They gathered other concerned citizens and founded ``Californians for a Cure,'' a campaign to raise funds for spinal cord injury research. Car accidents are the leading cause of spinal cord injury. Recognizing that, they sought state legislation to dedicate a portion of the state revenues collected from speeding tickets to spinal cord research. The Reed's State Assemblyman, John Dutra, took up their cause for spinal cord research in the State Legislature. In September 2000, after three years of tremendous work, Governor Gray Davis signed the Roman Reed bill into law. For five years, this law will provide $1 million annually for spinal cord research in California. Last Friday, March 1, the Roman Reed Laboratory for Spinal Cord Injury Research was dedicated at the University of California, Irvine. This laboratory was created through some of the funds made possible by the Roman Reed Bill. The Roman Reed Laboratory has a simple, important vision: to create a setting where scientists can rapidly translate ideas into research. Furthermore, the laboratory hopes to make it possible for any scientist with a compelling idea to immediately undertake research and experiments. The new core laboratory will help fast-track spinal cord injury research and speed up our chances of finding successful treatments to these devastating injuries. Today, Roman has regained the use of his arms and is a proud father himself. His parents still tirelessly push for greater strides in spinal cord injury research. Most recently, I've heard from Don Reed regarding his fight to oppose new federal limitations on stem cell research. Stem cells may well be one of the answers to fighting paralysis. Don is taking his fight from California to Washington to make sure that roadblocks are not put in the way of vitally needed research. I commend the entire Reed family for their dedication to finding a cure for spinal cord injuries--not only for their son--but for everyone who suffers from these devastating injuries. I am honored to know the Reeds, am proud to represent them in the U.S. Congress, and I am pleased to help them in this important cause.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill continues the ill-conceived approach of deregulating the Telecom industry and promotes the ``competition'' advanced by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I voted against the 1996 Act and I am voting against this bill. Chairman Tauzin has indicated that there are two ways to promote broadband development: deregulation of the industry or re-regulation of the industry. As California learned all too painfully in the energy arena, de-regulation doesn't work. By removing regulations put in place by federal, state, and local governments, we remove vital consumer protections and open markets to monopolies and price gouging. Aside from my preference for further regulation as a means to promote telecommunications competition, there are several things in this bill that damage our already weak regulations. Many of my colleagues who represent rural areas think this bill will ensure that their constituents have access to broadband services. This is simply not the case. Within five years, broadband data service must be available for anyone, with some exemptions. The consumer must live within three miles of a Bell office, so those farmers who have to drive three or more miles to visit their nearest neighbor will have to drive even further to get broadband internet access. Furthermore, if there is no other company providing broadband Internet access, the Bells don't have to deploy to those areas either. Under this bill, the Bells no longer have to unbundle their services for local phone competitors. This means that a local company who wants to compete against a baby Bell must buy all of the services the Bell company provides to a customer, even if the customer doesn't want the service and the local company doesn't intend to provide the service. Under the 1996 Telecom Act, this was not allowed. With the kind of prices I'm now charged for local phone service, I can't imagine what the Bells will charge for broadband service. This part of H.R. 1542 creates a market force to keep all competitors out of the broadband market place. Finally, H.R. 1542 repeals any state or local regulations that protect consumers from abuses by broadband service providers. This includes regulations for: anti-spam, anti-slamming (stealing other companies customers), privacy and obscenity protections, and disability access rules that may have been enacted either by the state, or local government agencies. In 1996, the Congress bought into the belief that deregulation of the local telecom industry would promote competition. Five years later, I still haven't seen any competition in the local phone market. It's time that we take the same approach to local telecommunications competition that we did not the long distance market: use the strong hand of the government to force these robber barons to give consumers a choice.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2002, the Milpitas Police Department will celebrate the retirement of one of its finest officers, Lieutenant Kenneth Doll. Lieutenant Doll began his law enforcement career after his separation from the United States Navy as a highly decorated serviceman. He is the recipient of the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross, Vietnamese Civil Action Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and eight air medals, as well as a Presidential Unit Commendation and a National Defense Medal. He joined the Milpitas Police Department on November 1, 1971, as the first Patrol Officer. He then advanced to Police Officer status in May of 1973, Corporal in August of 1979, Sergeant in May of 1982, and was promoted to Lieutenant in October of 1998. During his 30- year career, he has worked or supervised Patrol, Traffic Investigations, Community Relations, and Youth Services. For 26 years, he has been directly involved in the SWAT and Firearms program, and is responsible for a $250,000 Range development project, which is nearing completion. Lieutenant Doll has also represented the City and Department in athletic competitions throughout the state in the Police Olympics, the World Police and Fire Games, and the LAPD's Toughest Cop Alive competition, placing second in his age category twice. I am honored to join the colleagues of Lieutenant Kenneth Doll in commending him for his many years of dedicated and exemplary service to law enforcement. He has left his indelible mark of excellence on the Milpitas Police Department.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the elevation of Bishop J.W. Macklin to the Episcopal Office of Jurisdictional Bishop of the NorCal Metropolitan Jurisdiction of the Church of God in Christ. Bishop Macklin, a native of San Mateo, California, founded the Glad Tidings Church of God in Christ in 1978 in Hayward, California. The neighborhood of South Hayward, once riddled with crime, drug use and violence, was in need of someone to challenge the hearts of citizens and improve the community's conditions. Bishop Macklin was a perfect match. As a result of his role in preaching the gospel, creating an innovative ministry, and networking in the community, the neighborhood has undergone a dramatic transformation, and is known today as the Glad Tidings Community Campus. Bishop Macklin also serves the Church of God in Christ as Chairman of the Auxiliaries in Ministry Convention in Memphis, Tennessee. In that position, he presides over the Church's Summer Convention, which draws more than 20,000 delegates. In the past, he has served as president of the International Sunday School Department, and as a member of the Publishing Board for the National Church of God in Christ. A wide variety of groups have come forward to show their gratitude for Bishop Macklin's distinguished dedication to the ministry and his community. He has been the recipient of numerous citations, honors, special recognitions, and awards. These include the John Pappas Humanitarian Award, Bay Area's Most Influential Black Religious Leader, outstanding Leadership and Community Service from the City of Hayward, NAACP, Hayward Unified School District, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, California State Legislature, and the Congress of National Black Churches. In addition to the many honors and awards Bishop Macklin has received, he also established Northern California's Community Development, a non-profit housing corporation for South Hayward revitalization, and the Institute for Success, Welfare to Work Program for Southern Alameda County. His continual involvement in these programs demonstrates his dedication to enhancing community life and helping to improve individual lives. I am honored to join the colleagues of Bishop J.W. Macklin in commending him for his many years of dedicated and exemplary service to the Church of God in Christ. He has left his indelible mark of excellence on the South Hayward community.